User talk:Raime/Archive 3

Replaceable fair use Image:80 South Street Development Map.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:80 South Street Development Map.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please delete the image as soon as possible. It doesn't really add to the article, so I removed it. It is not a fair use image, definitely delete it. Raime 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

111 Huntington Avenue
I don't think that the new layout is better. I guess the problem with that article is too many images and too short text. Thanks for new articles about Boston buildings. If you have time, could you please add this to talk pages about Boston skyscrapers. Solarapex 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I have fixed that already. Thank you. Solarapex 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the new layout is slightly better. The Back Bay image did not belong, and images should not be compiled on top of one another, as that makes an article far too lengthy. The new format may appear to be somewhat distorted, but it is much more compact. And, with the exception of lists, image pixel sizing should try to be avoided so as to let individual browsers size images. But you are right, there are too many images. The problem is, both images portray the building the well. So, unless you have any ideas, I say just leave as is. Raime 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I put pictures for voting here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boston Solarapex 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:80 South Street Development Map.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:80 South Street Development Map.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please delete the image as soon as possible. It doesn't really add to the article, so I removed it. It is not a fair use image, definitely delete it. Raime 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I posted a reply to your comment about the Renzo Piano Towers here. Thanks. Hydrogen Iodide 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow!
Amazing work on the Plymouth article! Fantastic! --AStanhope 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I went out and took some images this morning, I'll upload them now. Let me know what you think. Raime 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, finished uploading. You can see all the images here. Raime 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Providence, FL
Congrats on the FL status of List of tallest buildings in Providence. Impressive accomplishment in 5 weeks' time.--Loodog 01:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But you did just as much work on it as I did, so there are congratulations to go around. Raime 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Plymouth South High School
Plymouth South High School, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Plymouth South High School satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Plymouth South High School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Plymouth South High School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rackabello 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Result of the debate was Keep.

Jordan Hospital
Could you please repost the photograph that you so kindly took, as I deleted it by mistake?

PlymouthMA 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Raime 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sig broken?
Hey, is your sig OK? Check these difs at GA/R: and. Only the date is now appearing in your sigs. You may want to fix that. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, i just put instead of ~ . My mistake! :) Raime 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Request
Hey Raime, Would you mind looking over Mount Barker, South Australia again quickly for me? I have done stacks of work on it and I would like your opinion again. --TheJosh 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to. Raime 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks --TheJosh 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd be glad to do a third review if you like, as apparently much work has been done since the 2nd. Raime 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth (Permanent Settlement)
Thanks for your comment on my talk page re the Plymouth article. I am glad you saw that my "permanent settlement" edits were well-intentioned as I didn't want to seem as if I was trying to push any sort of agenda. Somewhat unrelated, I found some of the skyscraper articles you've been working on (as noted on your userpage) to be very interesting. Great stuff. Lb34 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that reply, and for your compliments about the skyscraper pages. Raime 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Masterton Trophy FLC
I have recieved your comments and have addressed some of the concerns fully, but for the majority, I have questions and comments related to yours. I'd be very glad if you could answer them. BTW, as you're not in WikiProject Ice Hockey, you would be very helpful in review other FLCs, as we are in the middle of a WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive. At the page you will find the numerous candidates. Thank you in advance. -- Maxim (talk)  13:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Raime, could you please list the years that I should look over for POV/other concerns. It's a bit confusing in the present messy format of the FLC, and a bullet list helps. I'll try to implement the changes ASAP, but since I'm human, and I also have many other responsibilities as admin, this may take a day or two at the most. Thanks for your understanding.  Maxim (talk)  20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be gald to. I'll get started on it right away. Raime 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I meant you to write on the FLC page but it's not a really big deal. Thanks again. Expect some sort of reply in one to two days, the laundry list is quite big, but I'm glad you are so helpful with making it a better article.   Maxim (talk)  22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to help in any way. This is great list, it just needs a few more tweaks to get FL status. I've added a few more comments to your talk page regarding concerns. And sorry that I posted on your talk page - I figured that is what you wanted me to do. Raime 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done most of the stuff; I seriously overestimated the time required (sorry!). There are two lists, on my userpage, and on the FLC page, which will look a bit different due to me trying to clean up the um... mess.  Maxim (talk)  01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's hard to believe that entire 3 section-entry was made up of our edits! :) Great job in your continual improvements to this list. I can now say that I unconditionally support. Raime 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Maxim (talk)  02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa delist review
Since you weighed in last time, thought you may want to know that the Mother Teresa article was referred for review...again! Stubborn editors want another try. --Anietor 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me, I responded to this on the page. Raime 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GAR Presidio thingy
I was just pointing out I have a strong objection to simple citation counting, if that's not what you were doing, sorry to single you out. I don't doubt that the article was under referenced, but despite visiting GAR every once in awhile, which I just started to do again, I didn't notice the review until I saw a post on a WikiProject talk page so I got in the discussion a bit late. Anyway, about the infobox, with places on the National Register of Historic Places I like infobox_nrhp which has quite a few parameters and good mix of info that can be added to it. If you want me to do it I can, I know where to find the NRHP specific info and such. IvoShandor 09:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of small tweaks, hope they're okay. IvoShandor 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Boston (some fresh news)
Hello. I thought this would be interesting for you too since you were working on articles about Boston skyscrapers. "The Boston Courant" (Aug 25 - Aug 31, 2007, Vol XII, #47) reported that a series of proposals will be submitted this fall to build a few towers around Copley Square. Solarapex 01:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "roughly" 20-story office building (11-story building, approved in 2003, to add 8 stories (+110 ft)). Developer - Boston Properties, the owner of the Pru. Address - 888 Boylston.
 * The Exeter, 30-story residential tower. Proposed height - 340 ft. Developer - Boston Properties in partnertship with Avalon Bay Communities.
 * 50 story tower at Copley Place. Luxury hotel and roughly 450 residential units.

Building list collaboration/Barnstar
After looking at your recent contributions to building lists, I decided it was time to end the unsynchronised nature of our work by collaborating our efforts in improving building lists. But first, I will like to award you a....

That said, I think now would be great time to take a moment to smooth out places where we have different editing/contribution styles. More importantly, I would also like to better organize our contributions (e.g. what lists to improve/expand, what should be included, etc). For now, I just want to get things sorted out before we continue on with the lists. However, please note that I will be taking a short weekend wikibreak after a month heavy editing, but I will get back to editing lists probably by Monday. Happy contributing. =) Hydrogen Iodide 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)